"Working out frontage of battalion in line" Topic
111 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
|
Pages: 1 2 3
Iorwerth | 13 Dec 2017 9:52 a.m. PST |
I decided to do some research on battalion size and line frontage, to see if I could work out the rough frontage in meters a battalion in line might have, depending on its size. I have come up with a method, but am not experienced or knowledgeable enough about the period to really know whether my calculations are approximately correct or wide of the mark, so thought I would post them here to see if I can get any feedback. What I did learn was that the stated strength of a battalion was not how many men it would and could shove into line, as around 10-15% of a battalion would be made up of sergeants, drummers and officers who stayed behind the line. The actual number of these non-muskets varied in different battalions, but I settled for a simple % of 12.5%. It is not perfect, and breaks down slightly if battalion size is very large, but it seemed a reasonable number to use. Having worked out a way of determining the amount of muskets per battalion, I then needed to work out how much space each musket took up in a line. It seemed that 22" spacing per man was mentioned in a manual of the time, a French manual I think, and the French inch (pouce) is actually 1.07" (2.71cm). So 22 pouces comes to 23.5" (60cm) – I got this information about pounces from a thread on TMP: TMP link Anyway, using the figure of 60cm per musket in line seemed a sensible way to go. Next was to take into account the gaps between companies when in line. Rather than the companies standing shoulder to shoulder, there seems to have been 4-5 yard gap between each company in line, so I decided to go with 4 meters. On top of that, you also have the colour party in the middle of the line, splitting the line into two wings. I decided that the colour party probably took up another 2-4m on top of the natural 4m gap between the two companies either side of the colour party. I decided, therefore, that the frontage of the colour party and the gap they inhabit stretched to around 8m, though ended up rounding this to 10m (see below). Without going too overboard, using those figures I could work out the rough frontage of a battalion in line. E.g. Working out a British Line battalion of 640 men. It would have a total number of muskets in line of around 560 (640 x 0.875 i.e. the total number of men in the battalion minus the 12.5%). When put into line in two ranks, each rank was, therefore, around 280 muskets. 280 men at 60cm per man = 168m. There are 8 company gaps, (not including the gap where the colour party resides), which at 4m per gap, comes to 32m. Add the colour party 8m, and we get 168+32+8 = 208, so for a nice round number, I made the colour party gap 10m, rather than 8m, making the final frontage of the battalion 210m. Out of interest, this 210m frontage for the 640 man battalion in line corresponds exactly to the frontage Mark Adler, in his Waterloo Companion, states they would roughly have been. So I found that encouraging! A 640 strong battalion with 3 ranks would be: 560 muskets. Three ranks = 186.66 muskets per rank = 111.99m. Four company gaps = 16m. Add 10m for colour party = 137.99m, so round up to 140m. Using that formula I worked out the frontages for different sized battalions, in both 2 and 3 ranks. The first number in the columns below is the total size of the battalion, and 2R and 3R refer to two ranks or three ranks. I also round the figures to the nearest 10m, for ease. 480 = 2R:170m / 3R:110m 520 = 2R:180m / 3R:110m or 120m 560 = 2R:190m/ 3R: 120m 600 = 2R: 200m/ 3R:130m 640 = 2R: 210m / 3R:140m 720 = 2R:230m / 3R: 150m 800 =2R: 250m / 3R:170m 880 = 2R: 270m / 3R:180m 960 = 2R: 300m / 3R:200m Do these frontages seem reasonable? Is there a more accepted way of working out frontages, or some location where they have all been worked out before? I realise I am re-inventing the wheel here! Anyway, any advice or feedback would be welcomed. |
jeffreyw3 | 13 Dec 2017 10:13 a.m. PST |
|
Major Snort | 13 Dec 2017 10:26 a.m. PST |
In the British army of this era, there were no gaps left between companies in line. I would imagine that this applied to other armies as well. The colour party would only take up the frontage occupied by three men (the two colour bearers and a sergeant) with no additional gap The regulation distance between battalions in line in the British army was 6 paces (180") |
ScottWashburn | 13 Dec 2017 10:33 a.m. PST |
I would agree with the Major that the space between companies would be minimal. Probably just wide enough for a single man to get by. Larger gaps would serve no purpose and would be vulnerable if attacked by cavalry. Otherwise, good work! |
4th Cuirassier | 13 Dec 2017 10:56 a.m. PST |
Wouldn't the colour party have been behind the line? |
Major Snort | 13 Dec 2017 11:01 a.m. PST |
In the British army, when in line formation, the colour party were placed between the fourth and fifth battalion companies, in line, not behind it. The two colour bearers and a sergeant in the front rank and a sergeant and two NCOs or "steady men" in the second rank. |
MajorB | 13 Dec 2017 1:31 p.m. PST |
I find a good rule of thumb is ~100yds frontage for a battalion. Coincidentally, this is also effective musket range. |
Iorwerth | 13 Dec 2017 1:38 p.m. PST |
That is odd, as Mark Adler does state that a British battalion of around 640 would cover a frontage of about 210m, which is a lot longer than 100 yards. |
dibble | 13 Dec 2017 1:55 p.m. PST |
Blackmoores Destuctive and Formidable is an excellent book. link Though the period is to 1765, it's is still the book on the subject and of its evolution. Paul :) |
flipper | 13 Dec 2017 2:11 p.m. PST |
Hi 'That is odd, as Mark Adler does state that a British battalion of around 640 would cover a frontage of about 210m, which is a lot longer than 100 yards.' Don't forget a company may be thrown out in skirmish order in front of the battalion and would likely fall back to the sides of a deployed battalion, a part of a battalion was made up of drummers, officers, nco's, sappers … I would imagine your 640 would be more like 540 at most (with the light company thrown out). I would perhaps go for a compromise of a 150 yards! |
Iorwerth | 13 Dec 2017 2:22 p.m. PST |
By the way, thanks for all the information and book recommendations. If the info I found about gaps between companies was wrong, but there was still perhaps a gap big enough for a man to walk down (maybe the officer on the right hand side of the company and the sergeant behind him patrolled it), then would it be safe enough to presume this gap was around 1m? Presuming it is, and the colour party took up the frontage of three men (1.8m approx)then the 640 strong battalion would work out as follows: It would have a total number of muskets in line of around 560 muskets in total, so 280 muskets per rank = 168m. Eight 1m company gaps (not including the gap where the colour party resides), comes to 8m. Add the colour party 1.8m (call it 2m) and we get 10m. However, I presume there would be a gap between the colour party and the companies either side, like there are between the other companies, so call this another 1m gap either side. All told the line would be 168+10+2 = 180m. This is 30m short of the frontage Mark Adler thinks that size British company would have, so either he is far off the mark or else there is something being missed out here. Out of interest, is there a source which tells what the official gap between companies in line was supposed to be, or is it something that people have to guess at and work out from diagrams from the period etc? EDIT – answer to Flipper: from the diagram Adler uses, the battalion has the full ten companies in line. However, your 150 yards is pretty close to the 130m I got from the calculation above! :) |
jeffreyw3 | 13 Dec 2017 2:32 p.m. PST |
There are drill manuals out there (Nafziger is a good source for these), and period drawings of the drill, etc. "Imperial Bayonets" is a good source for this kind of information, and the references listed will give you a good springboard for further exploration. This site has good general overviews: link |
Iorwerth | 13 Dec 2017 2:42 p.m. PST |
Thanks. I just ordered the Nafziger book, so a bit of light Christmas reading! I have looked at that site before, but cannot see anything about spacing between adjacent companies. Still, it is very interesting site to read through. |
Major Snort | 13 Dec 2017 3:00 p.m. PST |
There was no gap at all between companies or the colour party in a British Battalion when formed in line. From the 1792 Regulations: Formation of the BattalionWhen the companies join and the battalion is formed, there is to be no interval between any of them, grenadier, light company or other Frontage in the 1792 regulations was "about twenty-two inches" per man. The 1824 regulations, which incorporated many improvement made during the Napoleonic wars states that the frontage was "about twenty-one inches" per man. James Shaw Kennedy, who served through the Peninsular and at Waterloo as a staff officer wrote in "Notes on the Battle of Waterloo": 82. The non-military reader should be informed, so as to be able to judge the manner in which Wellington and Napoleon occupied their respective positions at Waterloo, that 3,000 infantry, or 1760 cavalry, drawn up in a single rank, occupy one English mile of front; that is, each infantry soldier occupies 21 inches of front and each horse 36 inches of front: consequently, when British infantry occupy, in two lines, that is four ranks, [he is talking about two lines, one behind the other, each formed two deep] a field of battle extending one mile in front, 11,200 men are required… Shaw Kennedy was almost certainly referring only to "rank and file" here, not to those officers and sergeants who would be in the so-called supernumerary rank. The only gaps would be those between battalions. |
robert piepenbrink | 13 Dec 2017 3:29 p.m. PST |
If I'm trying to work out individual battalions in Europe, my rule of thumb is to subtract 10% as not rank and file, divide by the number of ranks and figure 2' files with no allowance for intervals within the battalion. That's going to work out close enough to Iorwerth's figures for government work, though I think V&B is right in saying they tend to stretch out more in North America. If I'm figuring for an entire army, it's 150 yards/bn including interval. I think to get more finicky that that, you'd have to go army by army and drill manual by drill manual. |
Major Snort | 13 Dec 2017 4:20 p.m. PST |
The idea that there were intervals between companies may have come from earlier British practice in America. Dundas (who wrote the 1792 Regulations used during the Napoleonic Wars) claimed that not only were British battalions in America used to forming with open files, they also formed with intervals between companies. He addressed this in his 1788 book, "The Principles of Military Movements Chiefly Applied to Infantry" which was the prelude to the official 1792 Regs. In very similar language to that used in the later official regulations, he wrote: When the companies join, and the battalion is formed, there is to be no interval betwixt each, grenadier, light company or other, but every part of the front of the battalion should be equally strong [this was done by equalising the number of men in each company by temporarily taking men from the strongest companies and attaching them to weaker ones]- Such intervals present so many flanks, and weak points, and could on no account be allowed in a more extensive line. |
Garth in the Park | 13 Dec 2017 4:36 p.m. PST |
What are the odds of a battalion on any given day in any given battle being precisely at establishment strength? Wouldn't they be understrength about 80% of the time and overstrength about 10% of the time? To my mind at least it's a contradiction to devote so much energy to historical exactitude for something that so rarely existed in history. |
Major Snort | 13 Dec 2017 4:41 p.m. PST |
Whether the battalion was at establishment strength or not, the frontage occupied per man remained the same, so the less men present, the smaller the frontage. |
Dave Gamer | 13 Dec 2017 7:57 p.m. PST |
For ACW regiments (=1 battalion) in 2 rank line, a good rule of thumb is to divide the number of men in the regiment by 3 to get the frontage in yards. So a 450 man regiment would have a frontage of 150 yards. Applying this to the 640 man British battalion (also in 2 rank line), that would be 213.33 yards. From Flipper's Mark Adkins quote that a 640 man line takes 210 meters that equates to 230 yards – close enough to 213 for government work. |
attilathepun47 | 14 Dec 2017 12:36 a.m. PST |
As a matter of fact, different armies did have different regulations on intervals. The French Army of the Napoleonic Era allowed more space for each individual soldier than the British did. If you want to learn a great deal on the nitty gritty details of organization, drill, maneuver, and tactics read the historical research articles on the site below, created by Rod MacArthur, a retired British Lt. Colonel. rodwargaming.wordpress.com |
4th Cuirassier | 14 Dec 2017 2:45 a.m. PST |
Rod's articles (and in fact his whole site) are terrific. I had no idea till he set it all out that British 'battalions' were in effect generated one at a time on a modular basis in discrete sizes. The information about the Guards having more than one light company per battalion was a revelation too. |
Iorwerth | 14 Dec 2017 4:19 a.m. PST |
What are the odds of a battalion on any given day in any given battle being precisely at establishment strength? Wouldn't they be understrength about 80% of the time and overstrength about 10% of the time?To my mind at least it's a contradiction to devote so much energy to historical exactitude for something that so rarely existed in history. It is not so much about how under or over-strength the battalions were on any given day, but rather trying to figure out the frontage of these over/under-strength battalions in line on the day. The % reduction in the calculations is about the % of however men where there on the day actually form up in line, and how many of them form up behind the line. That impacts on the frontage of the line.
Thanks Major Snort for the source information and thank you for taking the time to quote from them as well.
Taking all that on board, I have made some calculations based upon no company/colour party gaps. I have switched in my calculations to imperial measurement, as most here are talking about yards, though I will convert the number to meters as well.
As my basis for the British line I will use the 22" per man stated in the quoted manual. As to what % of the stated all ranks strength actually stood in the line, in Adler's Waterloo Companion he uses, as his example battalion, the 2/30 (Cambridgeshire), which at the battle of Waterloo had a parade strength of 640 men, but only 512 soldiers and 35 corporals, so only 547 muskets to stand in the line.
In addition to these 547 men you need to add the officer and sergeant for each company, totaling 20 men, plus the colour party, which consisted of 6 men. So in total, out of 640 men, only 573 formed up in the two ranks. That makes the line equal to around 89.5% of the battalion total strength. So, Robert Piepenbrink ‘s 10% ball park figure seems about right, which makes the total men in the line 576. For my calculations I am going to use 10% as the % of the battalion that stood behind the line itself.
Looking first at a 640 all ranks strong Battalion:
90% of a 640 strong battalion is 576. 576 men divided into two ranks = 288 men per rank. 288 x22" = 6,336". Divide this by 12 to get the frontage in feet = 528'. Divide by three to get the frontage in yards = 176 yards (approx. 160m). Well short of Adler's 210m frontage, so either Adler knows something that has not been mentioned here and so not part of my calculations, or his own calculations are incorrect.
Other battalion frontages, based on all rank strength:
480 all ranks: 132 yards (120m) 520: 143 yards (130m) 560: 154 yards (140m) 600: 165 yards (150m) 640: 176 yards (160m) 680: 187 yards (170m) 720: 198 yards (180m) 760: 209 yards (190m) 800: 220 yards (200m) So, the pattern is 11 yards (10m) per 40 men in the battalion's stated all ranks parade strength. E.g. a 960 strong battalion. = Divide 960 by 40 = 24. 24x11 = 264 yards (240m). A 1080 is 27x11 = 297 yards(270m).
A simpler calculation that gets you into the right ball park would be to divide the battalion all ranks strength by 3.64. Attillathepun47 notes that the spacing pre man could differ for each nation. Would the French be closer to 24" than 22"? Either way, if you use the 22" spacing, but work through a three rank battalion, you come out with the following: 480: 88 yards (80m) 520: 95.33 yards (87.16m) 560: 102.66 yards (93.87m) 600: 110 yards (100.58m) 640: 117.33 yards (107.28m) 680: 124.66 yards (113.98m) 720: 132 yards (120.7m) 760: 139.33 yards (127.4m) 800: 146.66 yards (134.1m)
So, a rough rule of thumb would be: 7.33 yards per 40 men all ranks in the battalion, or 6.7m/40 men. E.g. a 960 all ranks battalion would have a frontage of (960/40) * 7.33 = 175.92 yards (162.48m). If you do the actual correct math, a 960 battalion would work out at 176 yards (160.93m). So the rule of thumb is close enough.
If the space per man in line was upped to 24" per man rather than the 22", then three ranks would work out as:
480: 96 yards (87.78m) 520: 104 yards (95.09m) 560: 112 yards (102.41m) 600: 120 yards (10.73m) 640: 128 yards (117.04m) 680: 136 yards (124.36m) 720: 144 yards (131.67m) 760: 152 yards (138.99m) 800: 160 yards (146.30m) So, rule of thumb would be for every 40 men all ranks in the battalion, the frontage is 8 yards (7.32m). This boils down to divide the battalion strength by 5 to get the frontage in yards.
As this shows, even a small increase of 2" per man has a big affect on frontage – a 640 all ranks battalion is around 11 yards longer at 24" than at 22".
Anyway, to recap, to work out the rough frontage in yards for a battalion in line:
Two ranks: divide battalion strength by 3.64 Three ranks: divide battalion strength by 5. Do these calculations, and the end results, look about right and tally with other figures knocking around?
|
Jcfrog | 14 Dec 2017 5:22 a.m. PST |
Kriegspiel 1824 says 900 muskets (960+ men?) 250 paces, ~180+ m. Including bn spacing. French did not ( and still do not) align with shoulders touching but with bent elbow touching neighbour , then well, trying to keep the thing in line. It does take more space than the US parade à la Steuben. |
Iorwerth | 14 Dec 2017 5:57 a.m. PST |
Kriegspiel 1824 says 900 muskets (960+ men?) 250 paces, ~180+ m. Including bn spacing. I think a pace is around 2'6", so 250 paces is 208 yards (around 190m). My calculation for a 960 strong battalion would be roughly 192 yards (230 paces), and a 900 strong one is 180 yards (216 paces). That is presuming Kriegspiel is talking about a two rank line. Also, not sure how bn spacing figures in. I am presuming this is the spacing between battalions in line, but not sure. If the 250 paces was for a three rank battalion, then those 250 paces would be way off my figures, and more in line with the ones I had originally, when I was putting in gaps between companies etc – a 960 battalion in three ranks in my original system came out at around 200m, so close to 250 paces. (A pace, being 2'6" (30") is 0.762m, so 250 paces = 190.5m. |
von Winterfeldt | 14 Dec 2017 6:15 a.m. PST |
" Kriegspiel 1824 says 900 muskets (960+ men?) 250 paces, ~180+ m. Including bn spacing. French did not ( and still do not) align with shoulders touching but with bent elbow touching neighbour , then well, trying to keep the thing in line. It does take more space than the US parade à la Steuben." yes, but the elbow is not stuck out, at least not according to regulations, by a rule of thumb I give 50 cm frontage per soldier, so for 900 men, and French or Prussians in three ranks, would be 300 soldiers in first rank, 150 meter – a Prussian page is about 75 cm – so it is well over that 150 meter but there would be a bit distance – not a lot between each company – for for 4 companies 160 meter for 900 men – that would be my go. |
Flashman14 | 14 Dec 2017 6:47 a.m. PST |
I thought the French practice was to maintain frontages across all companies at the expense of depth. Front rank casualties were replaced by members of the 2nd amd 3rd ranks, but it was more important to not have flexible or shrinking frontages, because that creates huge gaps in the line. This also makes higher levels of command maneuvering possible. |
Iorwerth | 14 Dec 2017 7:40 a.m. PST |
yes, but the elbow is not stuck out, at least not according to regulations, by a rule of thumb I give 50 cm frontage per soldier, so for 900 men, and French or Prussians in three ranks, would be 300 soldiers in first rank, 150 meter – a Prussian page is about 75 cm – so it is well over that 150 meter but there would be a bit distance – not a lot between each company – for for 4 companies 160 meter for 900 men – that would be my go. a 50cm frontage per man is very small – you are talking 19.6" per man, which is substantially less than the 22" British drill manual recommended. Out of interest, using my calculations above, your 900 men in line is really a battalion size of roughly a 1000 men all ranks, which gives the following frontages, depending on the space per man: 19.6" (50cm) = 150m 22" (55.88cm) = 167.5m 24" (60.96cm = 200m |
jeffreyw3 | 14 Dec 2017 8:15 a.m. PST |
For Russians, I use 70 cm width and 36 cm depth (back of pack to chest), although I do see 22" quoted for the French. |
davbenbak | 14 Dec 2017 8:21 a.m. PST |
My question to the OP is, "How are you planning to use all this info?" Is this purely an intellectual exercise? Are you modeling a specific battle and wish to make sure that each battalion has the correct historic frontage? Sounds like a lot of variable basing and I shiver to use the term "re-basing". I often use the computer moderated rule set "Carnage & Glory II" which strongly suggests fielding units at their correct frontages. I, and I would suspect most gamers, try to base units to a general or average size. This conveniently works out to the British and the French each occupying about the same frontage when in line as the French battalions in the Peninsula were generally larger and gave more elbow room to each soldier even though they deployed three ranks deep. Also as mentioned the French sought to keep a constant width by supplementing from the third rank. In my experience this frontage also works out to be about the same for the Russians and Prussian despite having fewer but larger companies. The only time this breaks down is for the big battalions fielded by the Austrians. |
ScottWashburn | 14 Dec 2017 8:30 a.m. PST |
Any specific measurement, like 22", for the frontage of a man is just a convenient average. Men in close order are going to literally be touching elbows. It was the way they kept the lines straight. A small man was not going to spread out his arms to fill the 22", nor was a large man going to pull in his arms to fit. |
attilathepun47 | 14 Dec 2017 10:28 a.m. PST |
Below is a quote from Rod MacArthur's article "Napoleonic March Rates," to be found on his website (link provided in my previous post above): "French, and some other continental armies, seem to have used a distance of 2 metric paces (approximately 26″) between troops both in rank and in file. The soldier would then occupy exactly the same space whether he if facing his front or has executed a turn to left or right. The significance of this is that this makes it far easier to turn right (or left) and march to the flank, enabling formation changes in the "en tiroir" system. The penalty of course is that the firepower for any given frontage is slightly less than in the British system, quite apart from the 2 or 3 rank debate, since 6 British troops will occupy the space of 5 French. The company also lacks that elbow to elbow coherence which Dundas stresses so much. Such "en tiroir" formation changes are essential if battalions are in close column because there is not sufficient space to wheel. The British, with their insistence on 22″ per man could not easily use close columns, . . . " |
Jcfrog | 14 Dec 2017 11:08 a.m. PST |
Elbow is struck out when aligning. You don't normally touch your neighbours at all afterwards. Wider than for ex Russians holding withlittle finger to help keep in line. Parade. Reality, fighting likely different. Prussians in Kspl state their 900 are on 3 ranks. Pretty sure they useattle normal expected frontage vs parade ones. Practical. Then for games, just keep in mind there will be some bushes, hollows, small enough not to be on the table but which means often more space than not, so a variation of 10% from percieved truth does not matter much. Like for guns spacings, seems each army had its own. When we do give the same all over, we are wrong, but again, reality would not put such a practical huge variant, given their need of the proper terrain. |
Timmo uk | 14 Dec 2017 11:36 a.m. PST |
I'm fairly sure I've read a quote from Marshall Ney, posted here on TMP, in which Ney stated that battlefield formations opened the ranks by up to 25% to enable faster movement in column. The 22 – 24" per man was a parade ground ideal. This makes me question if 22" per man in line is enough to effectively function as a firing line. |
Le Breton | 14 Dec 2017 3:15 p.m. PST |
jeffreyw3 has it right …. Russian files were allowed a width of 1 arshin = 71 cm = 28 English inches The spacing of ranks was to keep 1/2 arshin = 35.5 cm = 14 inches clear between the chest of a soldier and the back of a soldier to his front (or his pack if so equipped) The аршинъ/arshin/stride was also the Russian military "pace". They had two march rates : тихий/tikhiy/calm (75 paces/minute) скорый/skoryy/fast (110 paces/minute). A battalion formed in a line of 3 ranks left no gaps between companies. The battalion at full war-time strength of 24 files per each of 8 platoons + rank closers + banner group was 208 files (148 m, 162 yards) for heavy infantry and 204 files (145 m, 159 yards) for jäger. To the right, it was possible to also place the battery of drummers, the junior staff officer of the battalion (mounted) and the battalion adjudant (mounted) and – for the first battalion – the regimental musiciens. However, these appear to have more usually formed behind the firing line of a deployed battalion. The Russians generally preferred to keep their 24 files per platoon, even if they had more or less men than the exact amount. Full wartime battalion strength in men was actually 84 men *above* 24 files per platoon. They would allow voids in the third rank rather than decrease the width of the battalion during battle. They would allow quite a few voids even in forming the battalion before combat (1/3, maybe 1/2) before forming on a narrower frontage. |
evilgong | 14 Dec 2017 5:05 p.m. PST |
Hi there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The regulation distance between battalions in line in the British army was 6 paces (180") >>>>>>>>>> Was this similar for other nations? This will mean a larger formation of units in line would look pretty much shoulder-to-shoulder and little different to the previous 3500 years of warfare. I've seen German battle maps that look like this but many others seem to show units with about half-unit gaps between them. Maybe the gaps are just graphic design to allow easier identification of units. Iv'e seen some rules that enforce unit separation that is hard to align with the trivial 6 pace gap. db |
evilgong | 14 Dec 2017 5:31 p.m. PST |
For the OP, Here are some unit strengths for Brit / allied battalions at Waterloo; 579 514 495 471 410 352 390 370 512 607 621 835 819 As another poster remarked what do you want to do with the information. I read plenty of accounts where a battalion would detach a company for a specific task and as others mention here different nations might deal with potential frontage shrinkage in different ways. DB |
Lion in the Stars | 14 Dec 2017 10:10 p.m. PST |
Any specific measurement, like 22", for the frontage of a man is just a convenient average. Men in close order are going to literally be touching elbows. It was the way they kept the lines straight. A small man was not going to spread out his arms to fill the 22", nor was a large man going to pull in his arms to fit. Quite true, though it's hard to see. When I learned my close order drill (at a fun place called MCRD San Diego, long story), the short guys at the far end of the height line were closer together than us lugs at the 6' tall and 48" chest section. When we lined up on the yellow footprints, I was a bit too close to the guys next to me because I'm about 3" wider across the shoulders than most folks. Things were better when we could spread out a little bit farther. Now, I might agree that the troops will spread out a little bit in the field versus on the parade deck, simply because you need to give a little more space for unsure footing. But it's still a matter of less than an inch (though, once you start talking about 600 bodies in line, an extra inch per man adds up in a surprising hurry). |
Le Breton | 15 Dec 2017 3:12 a.m. PST |
For Russians, the standard lateral gap between battalions of a regiment when deployed on the same line was 20 paces = 15.5 English yards = 14.2 m = 46.7 English feet. Drummers, musiciens, adjudants. etc. placed to the right of their battalion would partially fill this gap (not increase it). |
Iorwerth | 15 Dec 2017 3:50 a.m. PST |
The reason for the original question was two-fold. It arose out of trying to figure out the best basing system for the 6mm Napoleonic armies I am about to buy and paint up. I wanted a basing system that could be used for a variety of different systems. I have swayed back and forth on the what basing system to use, then thought that if I could figure out realistic line frontages, then I could try and replicate them at a scale of 1mm=1m / 1"=25 yards using multiple bases (probably of the same size, but maybe one smaller and one larger size e.g, 20mm and 40mm bases, or 15mm and 30mm bases). If I can do that, then for larger scales I can just use fewer bases to replicate the line. So that was my initial driver for looking into it, but then I found the subject matter interesting in its own right, so that spurred me on to start this thread.
One thing that caught my eye was Le Breton's point that the Russians tried to keep a steady frontage by taking men from the third rank. I wonder if that applied to other nations, and if so, what frontage did they try and maintain? What about the same thing with a 2 rank line? I wonder if there was a minimum battalion frontage that was stuck too, even if that mean that the 3rd rank was depleted, or even the second rank in a two rank line being depleted? |
Major Snort | 15 Dec 2017 4:22 a.m. PST |
Just to give more detail on the regulation spacing between British battalions in line: 1792 Regulations State: Battalions are formed in line at a distance of 12 paces from each other and this interval is occupied by two cannon, which are attached to each battalion – There is no increased distance betwixt brigades, unless particular circumstances require it. In exercise should there be no cannon betwixt the battalions, the interval may be reduced to 6 paces. As there were no battalion guns by the time of the Peninsular War, it's probably more appropriate to go by the 1824 Regulations, which were largely based on what had been done in the latter part pf the Napoleonic Wars: Battalions should be formed at the distance of six paces from each other: No increased distance need to be allowed between brigades, unless for the admission of guns, which may be posted on the right of brigades or divisions, according to the disposition of the commander; but never between the battalions of a brigade, unless particularly ordered. |
Major Snort | 15 Dec 2017 4:31 a.m. PST |
Regarding battalion frontages in action, British practice was to close to the centre as casualties occurred, therefore the battalion frontage would shrink. Many examples of closing to the centre can be found in period memoirs. Regarding minimum frontages for a battalion, it is often claimed that the British were forced to adopt the two deep line because many of their battalions were too small to form three deep and still comply with the regulations governing the frontage of a company. You will find this theory in Nafziger's book. Unfortunately this is not true and that particular section of Imperial Bayonets should be ignored. |
Le Breton | 15 Dec 2017 4:40 a.m. PST |
For Russians, if a unit could not form 13 files per platoon (i.e. they had fewer than 312 rankers in 3 ranks), the battalion was to be consolidated with another, usually of the same regiment. Consolidation would continue wih the other regiment of the brigade (same type) until 18-24 files per platoon was achieved. This process effected several regiments after Borodino. When re-fllling regiments, it appears that an intermediate point at 18 files/platoon was used in 1813. The regiments of a division would first be built back to this level, then if possible back to 24 files/platoon. |
jeffreyw3 | 15 Dec 2017 6:26 a.m. PST |
Yeah, that's what I've never been able to understand about battalion or regimental basing--the difference between line and a typical attack column, (speaking of Russians here) just to pick two formations, would seem to force you to include at least two different types of bases for each unit. |
4th Cuirassier | 15 Dec 2017 7:58 a.m. PST |
A point not often appreciated is that with the exception of some plastics, you cannot fit wargames figures into the correct scale frontage. A typical 28mm figure in an advancing pose, which is not an especially sprawling one, is typically 13mmm to 14mm wide. If height of 28mm equates to 5'6", the actual scale of the figure is about 1/60. A 14mm frontage thus means the figure occupies a space 33" wide, i.e. 50% more than he should. If you gamed at 1:1 scale your frontages would still be off! |
Le Breton | 15 Dec 2017 8:30 a.m. PST |
You can base Russians by platoon and it will work out OK : for a 1st battalion …. deployed : 1s – 1/3m – 2/3m – 1/2m -2/2m – 1/1m – 2/1m – 1g column of divisions on the center (attack column) : 1/2m – 2/2m 2/3m – 1/1m 1/3m – 2/1m 1s – 1g column of divisions on the right : 2/1m – 1g 2/2m – 1/1m 2/3m – 1/2m 1s – 1/3m column of platoons on the left : 1s 1/3m 2/3m 1/2m 2/2m 1/1m 2/1m 1g and so on. Note : s=strelkiy platoon, g=grenadier platoon, 1/#m = 1st platoon of the # musketeer/yeger/fusilier company, 2/#m = 2nd platoon of the # musketeer/yeger/fusilier company You can really see how the administrative companies did *not* map into integral combat units. None of the combat divisions (2x platoons) are the same as any administrative company (also 2x platoons). French are similar, with pelotons, right? This is why I don't like most games' repesentation of tactical formations : if you are getting down to moving platoons/pelotons you are *not* a corps commander, and certainly not an army commander. But if you are not moving platoons, you lose much of the flavor of the era. For late Russians, basing all the heavy infantry in attack columns and all the jäger as skirmishers is not a bad compromise – it was their typical formations and use of the troops. |
jeffreyw3 | 15 Dec 2017 8:38 a.m. PST |
|
Timbo W | 15 Dec 2017 9:13 a.m. PST |
Hi Le Breton, a quick question on the russian columns above, is the front at top or bottom? |
Le Breton | 15 Dec 2017 9:46 a.m. PST |
Hi Timbo! Front at the top. |
davbenbak | 16 Dec 2017 9:09 a.m. PST |
Not to change the entire subject of the original OP but…when (what year) did the Russians start splitting the fourth company into part grenadiers and part skirmishers? |
jeffreyw3 | 16 Dec 2017 11:32 a.m. PST |
I believe this dates to October of 1810, when the regimental restructuring occurred. |
Pages: 1 2 3
|